UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2086 In Re: VAN ANTHONY ROSE, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:04-cr-00194-RJC-CH-1; 3:08-cv-00216-RJC) Submitted: December 7, 2010 Decided: December 30, 2010
Before SHEDD and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Van Anthony Rose, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Van Anthony Rose petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order compelling the district court to rule on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion and to order the We
production of previously-requested grand jury transcripts. conclude that Rose is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only Dist. in extraordinary 426 circumstances. 394, 402 Kerr v. United States v.
(1976); (4th when Cir. the
Further, has a
clear right to the relief sought.
In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass'n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Our reveals that review the of the district court's a docket sheet and
judgment on September 27, 2010, in which it denied relief on Rose's § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because the district court
recently decided Rose's case, we deny Rose's mandamus petition in part as moot. To the extent that Rose seeks an order compelling the production of grand jury transcripts, he fails to show that he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Rose
fails to explain why he needs the transcripts in his mandamus petition, and provided no reason for his request in his motion 2
before the district court.
See In re Braxton, 258 F.3d 250, 261
(4th Cir. 2001) (stating that petitioner seeking mandamus must establish that he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 800 F.2d 1293, 1299 (4th Cir. 1986) (setting forth balancing test for
petitioners seeking release of grand jury transcripts).
the relief sought by Rose is not available by way of mandamus, we deny this portion of his petition. We dispense grant oral leave to proceed in forma the pauperis. and We legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?